determine each participant’s managerial style. It also explored the benefits of changing the deficiencies in individualistic behavior for training participants. The first generation courses emphasized psychological testing and concepts such as leadership (Helmreich et al, 2000). First generation CRM also targeted individual attitudes, leadership and communication (Wise et al, 2009).The goal of this generation CRM was to help prevent accidents caused by inconsistent flight crew performance.
The second generation CRM also aimed at individual attitudes, leadership and communication. This is similar to the first generation CRM but developed to include situation awareness, stress management, error chain and decision making (Wise et al, 2009). In addition, this generation of training also included training targeted to help avert accidents by improving crew performance similar to the goals of the first generation CRM. The first and second generation of CRM referenced accident case studies and engaged non-aviation games and utilized role playing in training flight crew (Wise et al, 2009). Second generation CRM dealt with aviation concepts related to flight operations and became more team oriented. Some of the training segments featured team building, briefing strategies, situational awareness and stress management (Helmreich et al, 2000).
With the introduction of electronic and digital cockpits came a need for the evolution of CRM; hence the third generation CRM was established. Third generation CRM helped broaden the scope of training in 1991 by addressing human factor issues (Helmreich et al, 2000). It incorporated features of a flight crew environment and also included organizational culture to help regulate safety in the flight environment. Also, technical training was integrated into CRM during this generation CRM to help pilots focus on specific skills and behaviors and effectively carry out their duties (Helmreich et al, 2000). With the third generation, CRM began to extend to other groups within the airline, such as the flight attendants, maintenance crew and maintenance personnel. Airline carriers also developed training for captains focusing on leadership roles that accompany commanding an aircraft. (Helmreich et al, 2000). Although the third generation CRM satisfied some of the needs of the flight crew, it diminished in its primary focus, which is the reduction of errors (Helmreich et al, 2000).
In 1990, the third generation CRM evolved into the fourth generation CRM with the integration of specific behavioral expectations to ensure the CRM guidelines is observed particularly in non-standard situations. The fourth generation CRM training addressed topics such as team interaction, roles and status, shared mental models and synergy within the work groups (Kanki et al, 2010). This CRM training aimed at changing the system performance by improving the performance of as many components as possible (Wise et al, 2009). This generation of CRM also included topics such as fatigue and automation, incorporated training for pilots and other flight crew and crew performance training originating from field incident data. In 1990, with the initiation of the Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced a change in training and qualification of flight crews (Birnbach & Longridge, 1993). AQP is a program that allows airliners to custom fit training to their specific need. With this flexibility in training, FAA then required the air carriers to provide Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) and CRM for flight crews and integrate CRM concepts into technical training (Helmreich et al, 2000). Airlines that have utilized the AQP agree that it produces the most improvement in CRM behavior in flight crew (Helmreich et al, 2000). However, in order to determine the validity of this claim , the achievement of the previous generations of CRM must be considered. Determining whether CRM training can